If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I think to be legally recognized as a person who is now a woman, the man has to get it chopped off. So if he gets rid of it, fine by me. If not, he is a man in a dress.

So if a man has lost his penis in an explosion or medical condition but dresses like a man then you are OK with it, but if in some convoluted twist of fate he realizes that he's always felt female, it's serendipity?

Darlin, he is always a man in a dress. It takes more than chopping off a penis to create a woman.

Chromesomes don't lie.

“Progress is Providence without God. That is, it is a theory that everything has always perpetually gone right by accident. It is a sort of atheistic optimism, based on an everlasting coincidence far more miraculous than a miracle.”
G. K. Chesterton

There is nothing wrong with curiosity or even a somewhat hostile desire to know about some human condition. Perhaps Hubie is only referring to a select group of poorly executed transitions and presentations rather than the categorical statement I inferred. Southern grace is to always first allow for the best possible motive, but Hubie has never demonstrated anything close to open mindedness or compassion so I won't lash myself too severely.

I think the question is interesting in that nationality is not an essential characteristic of a human being but biological sex is. Yet, it is harder to get society (and the law, apparently) to accept you as a different nationality than if, these days, you claim to be a different sex contrary to your anatomy. It is becoming more acceptable legally these days to claim another biological sex, but you still need a bloody passport to claim legitimate nationality. You see, I was only half joking when I said that it's because women don't have an army like countries do.

Think of it this way: Ru Paul cannot go to Australia and tell Australians how to be Australians--especially, not citing personal experience. But he CAN have a TV show where he shows real, genetically female WOMEN how to be women. Actually, what he is teaching them is acting like a drag queen, which, in itself, is female caricature. But think about it. Imagine Chaz Bono teaching men to be men. You think Rock or any genetic male would take lessons? I imagine that one day Bono (or someone like her/him) will do this, and there wlll be a big to-do, but in the end, there's no protection on the borders of gender and no passport.

So Hubie's original question (or statement, if the question was merely rhetorical) is actually quite intriguing philosophically.

So if a man has lost his penis in an explosion or medical condition but dresses like a man then you are OK with it, but if in some convoluted twist of fate he realizes that he's always felt female, it's serendipity?

I am talking about the actual on the books law. I think it's an interesting topic. I side with chromosomes unless they have voluntarily made alterations to meet any laws in regards to gender transformation.

“A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others.” – Ayn Rand